Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.Srishananda
S Thippanna, S/O Singadi ThippannaRamachandrappa, S/O Babanna – Appellant
Versus
S THIPPANNA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V Srishananda, J.
Heard Sri. Sundar Raj, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The defendants No.1 and 2 are the appellants in the second appeal challenging the validity of the decree passed in O.S.No.116/2013 and dismissal of R.A.No.60/2018 filed by them on the ground of limitation.
-
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
Respondents herein filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 02.06.2010 whereunder the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the property bearing assessment No.2199/2204/2199 with a Site No.453 situated at Harihar City, 'K' Division, Vidyanagar B Block, measuring East to West : 50 feet and North to South : 53 Feet which contains 10'x10' tiled shed, bounded on the East by : 30 Feet Road, West by : Vacant Site of Irni Math, North by: Site No.452 and on the South by : 454.
4. Of the total consideration, an advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid and agreement to sell was also registered before the Sub-Registrar, Harihara. Plaintiff had undertaken to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,43,000/- wi
The court confirmed the agreement for sale was valid, limiting the ability to challenge the decree based on delay and highlighting insufficient grounds for procedural impropriety.
The court reinforced that the burden of proving 'sufficient cause' for delay lies with the appellant, and mere claims of ignorance are insufficient.
Second appeal lies to High Court if High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved.
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of good faith, absence of notice, and delay in filing the suit, which disentitled the plaintiff to specific performance.
The plaintiff's failure to file the suit within the limitation period and to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract resulted in dismissal of the specific performance claim.
The court held that time is of the essence in contracts for the sale of land, and undue delay in filing for specific performance can negate entitlement to relief.
A sale agreement signed solely by the vendor is enforceable, and no fixed date of performance in an agreement allows suit filing within three years of notice of refusal.
Delay in filing a suit for specific performance is insufficient to deny relief if the contract is within the statutory limitation period and the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to pe....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
